Jeez-Mail

  This is simply a shout out to all of the people who actually know me and have my g-mail account in their contacts, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who has this problem with their friends. 
  
  Have you ever been criticized for something you didn't do, like you couldn't find your dad's stuff 'cause it wasn't in the place he told you it was but then he whips it out five seconds later? And no matter how many times you explain it, people still get up in your business about the same crap not two days later? Well, my friends have recently noticed that I "don't read my emails".
  
  Here's where I started to lose it.
  
  Number one, I DO read my emails. What they don't seem to understand from me telling them day after day is that, thanks to the laptop and internet I've been allowed to have, I check my g-mail inbox EVERY SINGLE DAY. I click on Chrome everyday, and all of my bookmarks and favorites open up automatically. I check new posts on my favorite websites, see what new videos my subscriptions have notified me about, scroll through my online course over-due lessons, and I check my email. Every time. Every day. The g-mail window is, like, right there. In fact, I can't not check my email. I'm always logged on, and the new emails just stare me in the face, basically saying "read me".
  
  Now, here's where they started to lose it.
  
  "Bro, did you get my email?"
  "Which one?"
  "Oh, that's right, you never check your email."
  "Bro, just tell me which one. How do you know I didn't see it?"
  "Nope, you never check it, I'm sure you didn't see it."
  "Just tell me which one, dude!"
  "The one about the blah-blah-blah."
  "Oh, yeah, I saw it. That was pretty interesting. Why were you so convinced I hadn't seen it?"
  "You didn't reply."

Wh-wh-wha? Wh...What? WHAT?! Huh?! Wh..?!

  Someone actually said that to me! And before I knew it, I realized that if I don't reply to an email when everyone else did, everyone assumes I didn't even see it! It's as if the "reply" button to me is the "okay, I read your useless, waste-of-time, oh-my-god-new-gaming-console email" button to everyone else!

  

  People, I can READ. It's possible with eyes, I swear. I look at words and I can read them. If your email consists of words and I see it, I can read it. I WILL read it. If I don't reply to your email, don't immediately assume that I'm dismissing it or that I didn't care enough to click on it. In fact, on that note, if someone who can change the g-mail format reads this, you should add a little side box for everyone to see how many of the guys they sent an email to clicked on it. Shouldn't be too hard. Then they won't attack you on the streets in front of your house.

  

  Another thing that may be considered a personal preference of mine is the availability of an interesting, or in the very least available, subject on an email. The email window gives you the "option" to place a subject of the matter you'd like to share with your cohorts. Bro, that's not an option. That's a freakin' requirement. If an email says "no subject", I personally don't even click on it. I feel like I was denied something really important, or that the person sending the email is, like, daring me or taunting me by not telling me what's going on. Even in real-life, you don't just go see your friend for no reason. Yeah, that's what I see subjects as: a reason. 
  
  When someone comes over, the first thing that comes to your mind, if you hadn't invited that person, is "why are they here?" or "what do they want?" or simply "what's up?". And when you go to the door, that person won't just stroll into your house and start doing stuff. No. They'll tell you what's up, and a series of events spawn. It could be good news, bad news, funny news. But you need to know what type of news is going on or you'll just be confused, your mind constantly repeating "so?". So yeah, me checking my email is me chilling at home, the email itself is my friend suddenly showing up, and the subject of the email is what's up. Then the rest of the email is what goes on after that.

  
  If an email didn't have a subject, then no, I didn't read it, because you intentionally made me not care. "What's the email about? Click it and find out!" That's not gonna happen. What the heck do you want to tell me? 

  Now, if an email does have a subject, and it seems relevant to life depending on my mood, I'll read the preview. Then, if I'm interested, I'll click the full link. If I see a "check this out..." or a "hey, I was wondering..." or something like that, and the subject has already given me a look into what this might be about, you have me interested. But if I see a "no subject" and then a bunch of "hey dude lol chck ths out rlly fnny #lmao", go home and cry rivers because I don't care at that point. 

  
  Anyone who disagrees and is reading this now, tell me you would have read this post if there hadn't been a title. If you say yes, I won't freakin' believe you until you make a video with you saying with a straight face that you wouldn't have cared for a title on this post and post it in the comments section. In fact, if five people tell me in the comments that they don't care if there's a title or not, my next eventual post won't have one. Then you tell me that you didn't shiver.

No title? sssssssssssssssss.....that sucks.

   I mean, jeez! 

  Until next we meet.

Ruining our Heroes

  We all agree on a few things in the world of movies. Number one, child actors suck. I mean, the Home Alone kid's scared face was so fake I think anyone who picked up a DVD version of the movie wanted to know what the kid thought was so funny about burglars. Number two, every main character (key word "main") in any movie involving guns is basically Neo until the end if the directors decided to kill him. Bullets are allergic to good guys. Ask Batman; I mean, he's been doing this for like fifty years. And here's something I'm sure has crossed your mind but hasn't quite dinged! yet. It's this: some actors just aren't their characters.
  
  There have been SO MANY movies in which the directors just chose the wrong guy/girl. Here's an example of a perfect choice: Tony Stark in the Iron Man and Avengers movies. I don't even call him whatever his name is (I know what it is but I refuse to say it). I just call him Tony Stark. Here's an example of the wrong guy. ICEMAN in ANY X-MEN MOVIE.
  
  What is this actor's name? I don't care (I actually don't know it this time. heehee.). So far I know he has a twin brother and he is definitely DEPRESSED. I mean, for real. He's going through something.
  
  See, I do watch a lot of TV. And I love Sci-Fi. It's my JAM (not as in toast). Star Wars, Tron, Falling Skies, Fringe, Alphas, you NAME it son. I've seen it all. Except Star Trek. That cow snot can go and hang itself for all I care. And, back to the Iceman actor (and his amazing TWIN!!!) they both starred in an episode of Fringe, and one of them in Smallville. In the Fringe episode, surprise surprise, one of them is some nut job and his brother is stuck in amber. His brother is a murderer or something. And they both have problems. DEPRESSION. In the Smallville episode (you know, about a teenage Superman growing up) he's this socially awkward kid with a crappy life, disapproving parents, nerd status, and when he accidentally gains Superman's powers through electric current (I know, right!? What the crap?!) he becomes dictatorial and out of control. DEPRESSION. This guy is just good at acting like a depressed, unappreciated, outcast individual. He might even be like that in real life (him and his amazing TWIN!!).

  So why. On Earth. Was he cast. AND IS BEING CAST IN THE UPCOMING MOVIE (Days of Future Past). AS ICEMAN!!!!?!?!?! Why is he Iceman?!!?!! Do you KNOW Iceman, dude who chose the actors for the X-Men movies? HUH?! Read comics for a change, you ape! Iceman, aka Bobby Drake, is the funny guy. He's ecstatic. The joker. The guy who has an awesome power and knows it, and makes sure the rest of the world does, too! He's THE MAN. He's cool (pun intended, human race! PUN INTENDED!). He's fun. He's bright.

This is Iceman. See? He's freaking happy.

  So why did you choose depression guy? I mean, this dude's FACE is depressed. It's bored and empty of emotion. It's actually almost SERIOUS. Iceman is not SERIOUS! Not all the time! I did not like any of the X-Men movies that much, and one of the biggest reasons besides Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch's absence and the stupid sunglasses-phone (it's just stupid I hated it) was Iceman's character. Heck, in the movie, when his parents find out he's a mutant, EVERYONE'S depressed. He doesn't crack a single joke, doesn't smile enough, if at all, and dates ROGUE. When did Iceman date ROGUE? You can't even date Rogue! You can't touch her and she can't touch you! Have fun talking for the rest of your life! This dude just...aint Iceman, yo. He aint Iceman.

He aint Iceman. Look at his face. He's more depressing than Rogue.

  Another thing: I know perfection isn't really out there. No one looks perfect or acts perfect or just is perfect or anything. But when you get Superman, in his return to the big screen, in the EPIC movie Man of Steel, and you have our hearts pumping and our emotions swirling and our hands clinging to our seats, don't make him scream out loud in regret and show off his jacked up teeth. I mean, the dude's teeth were not good. At all. He had the black, oily hair. The red cape. The "I'm awesome" demeanor. But then the dude has jacked up teeth? I mean, one was twisted and one was backwards and I was just shocked at how bad they were. Of all the things that got messed up during your fight (which shouldn't be anything, really) his teeth got messed up? Don't use that as an excuse. Get good dental care with the money you made being Superman, you donut!

MY TEEEEEEEEEETH!!!

  I'm very disappointed at these things that can be avoided so easily. How could that be Iceman? Why didn't you put a green screen or something on Superman's teeth (I don't know a whole lot about green screens)? Fix these movies. Please. I really want to see the new X-Men movie...but I might not be able to.

ps: I guess Hugh Jackman looks like Wolverine, a lot, but I'm not...scared of him like I should be. Or intimidated. Like, when Hugh Jackman goes snikt! and Wolverine on TV goes snikt!, I find myself having nightmares of the cartoon. Wolverine is scary and gruff. Hugh Jackman just has the right hair.

Until next we meet.

Meese

  You want to know something that's kind of annoying? The English language. Who came up with it, or whatever it is the world uses in this age and era? You have words and words and words, and all this time you have no idea what you're doing.

  Is there anyone monitoring the English language? Let's assume there is, and call him Joe.

  You're not doing your job, Joe!!

  First of all, you have...SAT words. Intense vocabulary. Words that are tens of letters long that must be memorized and studied and understood. But I seem to recall that once you already have a decent something to perform or play as something, you don't need to make another one! So why are there words like "deleterious" which just means "harmful" or "fallacious" which means "incorrect"? What was wrong with keeping the words that you already had and saying "Done!"? Why was that so hard? And after you've beat yourself up, stabbed and jabbed all of these words into your head, and graduated from college, you realize...

  No one on God's Earth uses them!!! No one! You've literally committed yourself to memorizing these long, unimportant words that you won't use in any situation. If you write something, why are you gonna use all of these complicated words that only someone extremely educated will understand while you have an entire arsenal of words that everyone understands? Example: anybody remember Charlotte's Web, the book turned into a movie with that pig and that spider? Anyway, at some point, the spider says to the pig:

  "Salutations."

  And the poor pig replies:

  "What's that?!?!?!?!"

  And the spider says:

  "Just a fancy way of saying hello."

  SAY FREAKIN' HELLO!!!!! 

  Secondly, Joe, why do you go back completely on your own rules? Plurals, for instance. Apple? Apples. Door? Doors. Then, Joe says: "Hmmmmm. I don't like how 'gooses' sounds, so I'm making it a special case. What? No, no, humanity, you won't ADAPT to saying the word 'gooses' until it becomes comfortable, just like what you'll do with every other word. No, no, how about 'geese' for the plural of goose, huh? 'Geeeeeeeeeeese'. See how it rolls off the tongue?"

  Later, in the Batcave....

  Joe: "Whuh? No, the plural of moose will be simply 'moose'."

 Facepalm.

  Joe, Joe, the people want to know: after your utterly ridiculous decision, you know, the 'geese' thing, what was wrong with...'meese'? Seriously, don't tell me I'm wrong, true believer, I am making PERFECT sense! If the plural of goose is geese, why the crap isn't the plural of moose 'meese'? You know what, forget it, I'm not even putting it between quotations any more: meese. It's a word, because you literally SAID so, Joe, so deal with it. Meese is a word. I'm totally getting a customized shirt that says moose/meese. If you ever see me and we start talking about meese, expect me to say the word a bajillion times.

  Joe, do your job. Please. We need you. I'm not the first and only guy in the world whose mind hasn't at least crossed this. But you know how nowadays we laugh at our ancestors for saying "thy" and "thou" and stuff like that (believe it or not, those weren't underlined in red, unlike meese...)? Yeah, well I'm warning you, Joe, give the world a few decades and your grand-kid's grand-kids'll be laughing at how we never said meese...until now.

Until next we meet. Save the meese.

Moose? Meese, scumbag.

What is Up with Angry Birds?

  I think I speak for everyone when I say that if you have a touch-screen tablet of any size (try out our new bigger than an iPhone but smaller than an iPad! Apple.) or type, you know what I’m talking about when I say these words: Angry. Birds. Angry Birds.

 

  So, how have our little violent birdies been doing? Okay, well, they recently teamed up with Lucasfilms and created a Star Wars (eeeeeeeeeeek!!) version of their fling-birds-at-stuff game, and a while before that they had this weird space version in which I myself was only a fan of the water planet levels. The people at the company that made this game, Rovio, I think, are probably swimming in a pool of money right now. And the second they release Angry Birds Transformers (please?) I’m gonna be standing there with my dollar ninety-nine, ready to exercise my finger again for a few hours.

  So what happened? Well, my friends, I just wanted to share with you a few things I noticed about this franchise that were kind of ridiculous. Here’s What is Up with Angry Birds:

  @. Useless birds: As I mentioned before, Rovio released a space version of the game that introduced zero-G and all that, and I wasn't a huge fan of it. Call me picky. The interesting thing, though, was that it introduced new birds. The birds were more like redesigns of old birds, upgraded versions you could say. And that brings topic number one: Rovio has made a lot of very useless birds. We have:

     

       a.The red bird: This guy has never been useful. You always start off with him, and using him is hopeless. He has no strong points (like the black bird is strong against rock and the blue bird is strong against glass) and he has no special ability. He is the most useless bird of late, and I’m pretty darn sure that Rovio made him up to serve the sole purpose of being a symbol. No, no, not a bird who can actually BREAK something, nope, make our symbol a fat, red ball with a beak that squeals when you chuck it at wood. I swear, sometimes, I feel like going out and extinct-ing this bird.

        

       b.The green bird: What the bald monkey?! What is this bird supposed to be, a toucan?! Yeah, well toucans are a dumb idea of a bird of war (so is a chicken, but hey, dive-bombing eggs was NOT a bad idea). They’re meant to be exotic and beautiful, especially their beaks. Thanks to Rovio, the beak of a toucan now serves as a boomerang. Hooray. That’s just what we needed; we’ve been BEGGING for a bird that you can’t aim with. I’m not lying when I say that every level of Angry Birds that I haven’t finished features the freakin’ toucan. He is very useless in the fact that when you ‘boomerang’ him, he just flops onto the floor and barks. What?! I’ve even tried throwing him BACKWARDS for crying out loud, then boomeranging him so he can fly forward, but I guess then I've just replaced the red bird with the same thing.

       c.The orange bird: He’s the newest, and literally the DUMBEST. Here, let me explain: ya throw him, wait for a few seconds, and then he gets fat.

  I take it back, the red bird can at least kill exposed pigs, but THIS guy, sheesh, he just…inflates. That’s it. That may sound awesome to you, but when you try him out, you just find yourself waiting for him to deflate and disappear so you can get back to, you know, KILLING PIGS.

  @.Gets owned by the bad guys: So, the plot of Angry Birds (I know you know what it is but shut up and let me finish) is this: Pigs steal eggs, birds want revenge. The pigs are the bad guys. Who doesn’t love bad guys? Seriously, name any hero or protagonist whose villain isn’t just THAT much cooler than him/her? The Joker from Batman, Darth Maul from Star Wars (eeeeeeeeeeeek!!), and the zombies from the Walking Dead (eek) all have the same quality: They kick butt cheeks. And fortunately, that is also the case with Angry Birds. Rovio released a pig’s version of their game last year, which of course had a different gameplay style and goal. You build contraptions out of random items the game throws at you and try to get to ‘the other side’ (Fringe reference). And let me tell you, no matter what your kids think, this game is just awesome. No more than two dollars, folks. You gotta get it. It is really fun. And while Angry Birds is oh-kaaaay, Bad Piggies beats it with flying colors (or flying pigs.) I guess this isn’t…really a rage. Sorry.

  @.Murder: This makes me very sad. This fills my eyes with H20. My heart just rips itself into non-existence. MY LIFE HAS NO MEANING. Why? Why, Rovio? Why would you do this? Why would you put this horrible tragedy in our minds? ALL WE WANTED TO DO WAS PLAY A GAME, ROVIO!! MURDER IS NOT A GAME! DO YOU THINK MURDER IS A GAME ROVIO?! This specific…rage, if you may, has two terrible, terrible factors: 

  

  One, if the sole purpose of your war is to get your eggs back, why on Earth would you just commit suicide? The birds are committing!! Suicide!! They’re killing themselves. They’re blowing themselves up, breaking their own bodies, and flinging themselves at sharp edges to get their babies back! Why you doin’ it if your jut gonna end up dead? Why would you leave those eggs without parents? Why?! 

  

  And number two: if the sole purpose of your war is to get your eggs back, why is the white bird basically CRAPPING out eggs onto the freakin’ battlefield?! I know that I mentioned this as an awesome idea, but still...when you think about it, it's really revolting. And, considering the fact that you HAVE to have eggs, can’t the white bird just…make some more? These are not hidden factors, my friends. This is MURDER. And that is very…I just can’t take it anymore. How could you forget what you’re fighting for? You murder yourself to save your kids, and then you murder your kids to save your kids? This has to be stopped.

  In conclusion, I hope I haven’t ruined Angry Birds for you, because they try really hard. So just…try harder, ‘kay?

Until next we meat (see what I did there? ‘meat’? pigs?).

p.s.: Um…the female birds lay the eggs and watch over them, right? Juuuuuuuuuust checking…..-.-.

 ?????

The Dream World: The Secret Behind Passing Out

  Martial arts. Self-defense. Fighting. These are all phrases. But what do they mean? Do they imply that it's all 'art' out there? Is being able to hurt someone 'self-defense'? Or does it all come down to 'fighting'? The bloody-fisted, bone-crunching, black-eye-at-the-end-of-the-day fighting? No, I am here to tell you otherwise. I am here to tell you that, at the end of the day, what you know as an art or a form of defending yourself or a way to beat up someone is simply a sport. A sport that you can grow to love. A sport that you can take seriously or for granted. A sport meant to raise your confidence, strengthen your body, and give you a heck of a time while doing. And no matter what, nothing is wrong with a sport.

  

  In football, you may get trampled. In soccer, you may get tripped. In baseball, you may get hit. And in any 'martial art', you may get hurt, and very badly. But at the end of the day, who or what is to blame? The answer is nobody. There is no blame. It is part of the game. It is part of the sport. You might get hurt. You may quit the sport, maybe you don't want to get hurt again or maybe you just can't do it anymore. But there's always something that stays behind, something that clings on and that you hold onto, impossible to let go of. The experience stays. Possibly the thrill. The hardships, oh, definitely. But what you never forget is the time you spend with your friends. They are your friends. He/she had to stop you from scoring a point. He/she didn't want to hurt you, it was just part of the sport. The sport you wanted to do with him/her. The sport you enjoyed together. He/she had to help his/her teammate, and not you. That doesn't mean he isn't your friend. You weren't on his team. Part of the sport. You still like the sport? Your choice. But your friend stays. He/she won't leave. He/she can't destroy you, not on purpose. Never on purpose. Why would they? It's just a sport, it can go away, but your friend stays.

  Now, sports are no joke. They are fun, VERY fun, but they come with consequences. Boxers  can get brain damage. Basketball players can ruin their knees. And we all know what can go wrong in free-falling. But you don't care. The sport was there, and you wanted a part of it. You knew the dangers, but danger is forever. You cannot miss out on something you cherish. If the sport calls out to you, enjoy it. Don't think about brain damage or twisted knees or the big splat. Just think about your need for the thrill. And think about your need for your friends. They are there to hang out with you, talk to you, even guide you. And in a sport, they can hurt you. But they can save you. And if they don't, it's not like they didn't want to. It's not like they planned it all. Allah knows best, so if what you and your friends wanted to do ever goes wrong, know that nothing can ever be you or your friend's fault. 

  My friends introduced me to the sport of BJJ (Brazilian Jiu Jitsu). It is called a martial art. It is a good source of self-defense. And it is a sport. When I first started training, I didn't think it was too bad. The moves and techniques were, and still are, very useful to every extent. I myself also found it as a good source of exercise. But then, yesterday (or yesternight), it happened. I was sparring with my good friend, a neighbor of mine, when he got me in an excellent choke. All part of the sport. All part of being friends. Neither he, nor anyone else, could have expected that I would would pass out on that day (or night. Seriously, it depends). All I remember is hanging on, trying to get out, but then finally deciding to 'tap out', or concede. And I did. But by then, I couldn't breathe. Then my eyes closed. 

  

  The others in the room say my eyes rolled. It was dark. It was almost peaceful. I could hear things. I could feel myself spitting, vomiting. I could hear my younger brother crying, and someone going to get him. I could feel myself being rolled over. And then I woke up. The blackout had only lasted seconds. It felt like forever in what I have dubbed 'The Dream World'. You can see yourself. You are in and out of your body at the same time. You can catch bits and pieces of what is happening. But when I woke up, I remembered nothing. I had had no idea what had just happened. I had had no idea that, in an attempt to accomplish a successful choke in the good of the sport, my good friend, one of my lifelong friends, had caused me to pass out. It was my first experience. It was one of my many hardships and pains. And it was part of the sport. He had attempted to save me. The vomiting caught him off guard. Another of my friends, an instructor, intervened and put me into a 'recovery position'. I survived. I'm fine right now. I had scared a bunch of my other companions. But after it was over, after I had gotten my breathing together, we talked and even laughed about it afterwards. Why not? No one was hurt. No one was to blame. We all completed another influential and successful class. And I will still continue the sport. One hardship may be enough to discourage you. One hardship could permanently end your love or desire for a sport. But my advice to you is, no matter the hardship:

  Never hate your friends. And never forget them.

  Until next we meet. 

The Difference Between "No" and "Nope"

One ends with a "pe".

Until next we meet.

Never Watch Trailer 2

  Movie lovers! How you been? Seen any new movie trailers yet? Really? Awesome! I love movies too. Don't get confused, by the way, this isn't a "Second edition" post or anything. When I say trailer 2, I mean the SECOND trailer.

  Are we on the same page? Good.

  Now, let me ask you something. You, not me, 'cause I already know. What's a trailer? Some Sherlock wannbe would probably say "a large vehicle that is commonly used as a mobile transport". Yeah, well, I aint talking about THAT kind of trailer, I'm talking about a movie trailer. What is that? Obviously, movie lovers, a movie trailer is simply a preview. It is a not-over-two-minutes-long video short portraying a sneak-peek into a movie that hasn't been released. Of course, unless you're me, you don't watch a movie trailer AFTER the movie's come out. I'm kind of a freak, deal with it. If a new movie comes out, and you wanna know what it's going to be about, and you don't feel like reading (obviously, you don't have a problem reading), you watch the trailer to find out. Is the main character a man or a woman? A boy or a girl? A cat or a talking cat? Will it be animated or live action? Will it be action or, Allah help us, drama? 

  Sometimes you get a movie trailer. Flashback. The main character. A drifting car. The slow-motion-jump-out-of-a-glass-window cliche. The dude with the awesomely deep voice in the background. The one character in the movie that understands what the butt is going on. The screaming of a person's name ("Johnyyyyyyyyyyy!!"). The guns of the movie. And then the title. Thus, the movie trailer.

  Now, what's the problem? I'll tell you.

  If you think about it, the trailer is, um, you know, FULL of SPOILERS. 

  Of course, as usual, I'm 'exaggerating'. Yeah, well, shut up and listen. You want to watch the movie. You want to see it. You want to go to the theater, or buy the DVD, or pirate the movie and watch it. But you can't watch the movie without...knowing what it is. So you have to watch the trailer. There's no other freakin' way. What is a person to do? Just flip a coin and watch it? That's dangerous. It could end up being a drama. Or a reboot of Spiderman. So you have to watch the trailer. It's informational. 

  But the problem is the dudes who make, listen to this, TWO trailers. Okay, so no big deal. It's still another TRAILER, right? So it's probably the same. NO!! You're wrong! And that's sad! The second trailer is modified! 

  Trailer 2 is always filled to the BRIM with spoilers. Major spoilers? No, not exactly. See, trailer 2, sometimes called the extended trailer, shows added clips that weren't in the trailer. It sometimes lasts longer, gives out more information, and even sometimes explains what someone said in the trailer that nobody could understand.

  But isn't that the point? Isn't the point of a trailer to show enough for you to want to watch the movie, while still keeping some major points un-revealed? If a company releases a trailer, people watch it. The people who watch it get a feeling and a small idea of what might be in the movie. But you don't freakin' show us the whole movie in two minutes! That ruins the whole effect of a trailer, which is meant to keep you guessing. A good 'trailer 1' keeps the whole story in check, doesn't reveal too much, and has all of the fans hopping up and down in anticipation. I guess all of that hopping is why they release another trailer, just to show a little bit more. Well, NO! That's called giving in. The fans don't wanna wait? That's their problem. You're making the movie, so you give out a trailer that tells you what it's about. Then, when it's finished, you show the movie. THE TRAILER IS A SPARK-PLUG. It is a fuse. It lights the fire and activates the sticks of dynamite that are the fans. Trailer 2 is just extra gas, extra flame. You don't  keep stabbing and shooting an animal that you just killed. By the time you get home, you've already ripped the animal to shreds, and you're original goal which was a good meal is completely fizzled out and ruined. That is what trailer 2 is. It gives out info just above too much. Trailer 1 is the shot that kills the animal. Now you have a meal, which is you're movie. Trailer 2 is the mistake of ripping the dead animal apart, and you end up starving 'cause the original amount of food is gone. If you release a trailer after you've already released one, and all you do is add more stuff that you were gonna save for people to see in the actual movie, the morons who watch trailer 2 are gonna be all mad and stuff because now they don't really need to see a movie that they really wanted too.

  My message comes in two parts: One to the geniuses who release a 2nd trailer, and another to the sad impatient movie freaks that watch the 2nd trailer. Geniuses, stop. Don't do that. Don't break what is already broken. And freaks, be smart. If the geniuses fail at doing their jobs to release one trailer only, make it your job to not delve into a horrible mistake. Never watch trailer 2, my brothers and sisters. NEVER. 

  Don't make two trailers, and don't watch the second trailer if someone decides to say "Hey, I know! Guys, I have an idea! How about we make another trailer, but instead just add more stuff! You know, like stuff everybody wanted to see when the movie came out! No, no, they're not spoilers! Guys? Guys?!?! Fine, I'M gonna do it!"

  Oh, and if you want me to flash out some examples or whatever, you're so depressingly wrong. You want examples? Well, if you're gonna pretend this never happened to you (One trailer shows something that you believe could've waited to be seen on screen), go to any movie with 2 trailers and tell me I'm wrong.

  Until next we meet.

Disgusting...Or Efficient?

  Hello, again! This will hopefully be the first of a series of debates on 'misunderstandings'. Allow me to introduce the second (my first was video game age ratings) of my many nemeses:
  Society.
  Society isn't exactly evil. Truthfully, it shouldn't even be considered a nemesis. But I can't help it. Society has done some great things, yes, but those great accomplishments cannot outweigh the dumb things society has done. One of those things would be the use of the term disgusting.
  Now, don't stop reading when you read this, but...do you think nose-picking is nasty? Be honest. You do, don't you? You can't help it. Why? Because society has you believing that. You no doubt grew up around everyday people and lived/are living an everyday life, and the fact that society is everyday life and people there's nothing society can't get you to do. For example: In general, guys don't hit girls. Society has it that way. It's embarrassing or 'weird' when a guy does girl stuff but not entirely when a girl does guy stuff. Society has influenced this as well. A cheeseburger meal comes with french fries. You think that's the 'way of the world'? No! It's just stinkin' society! If someone were to start serving goat toes with burgers and somehow convinced the world that this was okay, then all of a sudden EVERYBODY started doing, guess what? It would become normal. That's how society works. It isn't an object,  a he or a she, you can't fight it. 'It' gets individuals to do and eventually adapt to things that keep the world in order. Why not eat goat toes with your burger? Why not eat them at all? Ask society. Society is too big. One day someone will find a way to affect society with the click of a button, but until then, as long as MY generation goes, you can't affect society unless you're a song, a very powerful and influential speaker, a car,  or a cat. That's how it is, folks.
  Now, my main main point...nose-picking. Think in terms of society. It's disgusting. Sticking your FINGER in your NOSE?! Come on, dude! That's terrible!
  Now...think in terms of humanity. What are we good at, people? Adapting. We always have and always will adapt. Pollution? Trash cans and flame-throwers. Stupidity? Public schools (I guess). Hunger? Food (not everyone has it. May Allah help them). Fatness? Gyms. We got it all. All it takes is one of us to figure out a sensible, reliable, efficient solution to any...mind the irony...social problem we face. When we saw how bored we were, we made an efficient solution: books and TV. You can do either of those things for hours. Boredom conquered.
  So what's wrong with...picking your nose. Well, you and until now I know the answer to that. Yes, picking your nose in the presence of someone else is disgusting.
  Or is it?
  When you catch someone picking your nose, you say things like "eeeeeeeeeewwww" and "gross!". Well, if you're still a toddler anyway. What sensible people affected by society would say is:
  "Get a tissue!"
  Why?!
  We talked about this. We adapt in ways to make lifestyle more efficient. When you feel 'him' in your nose, your first impulse is and should always be to stick in your finger in your nostril. This was humanity's first attempt. The finger is a thin, prehensile appendage attached to the end of your hand, which in turn is attached to your wrist. There. Do I even have to spell out all the joints and points of movement you're working with here?! You've got your finger, thin enough to fit into your nostril, long enough to go deep inside, and flexible enough to hook around edges and unreachable surfaces found inside your nose. 'He' will be out in no time! And if the finger needs help, guess what? You've got your wrist available to jerk this way and that and into different positions and sharp movements. You've got an arsenal!
  Why should we listen to society? Society wants us to 'get a tissue' and hook it around our fingers, cutting off all of the flexibility at your disposal. Blowing your nose won't help. either, because 'he' is a little sticky. Don't be blind to the truth, ladies and gentlemen, you can wash your hand later. Instead of a tissue box, why not have that for blowing your nose and a smaller container or trashcan maybe to just...dispose of 'him' once you're finished?

You are the sniper, the rifle is your finger, and 'he' is your enemy. One shot one kill, eh?

  Be efficient. That's all I'm saying.

  That's it. Post in the comments whether YOU believe:

  

  A.Nose-picking is disgusting.

  B. Nose-picking is efficient.

  C. Nose-picking is both, of course, gross but also very effective.

  Until next we meet.

  

  P.S.: 'He' is the booger. But you all knew that.  

  

  

Wrong Age Ratings on Video Games

  This will be my first post, and I hope it turns out okay.
  One main problem I have in my life, besides all of the other important problems, would be video games and their age ratings. I'm still at the age in life where your parents won't allow you to have a game that has too much 'adult content', and i completely respect that. I don't think they'd approve of my ten-year-old brother trying out Mortal Kombat Fatalities at school. I can also respect the need for video games with adult level age ratings. Everybody's gotta play video games, right? Imagine how mad  people would be if the excitement in a game never exceeded Mario Kart or Fruit Ninja. You need to have games for everybody, and that's what the great men and women of the video game industry are trying to accomplish. If you want to play video games, you need a video game that you can and will play.
  So why on earth do they let the wrong people give out the age ratings?!
  Okay, I'm exaggerating, they're not the wrong people. They are actually fair with their age ratings. But someone unlike me, someone who can play any game he/she wants, would never notice that some age ratings are just...wow.
  My main focus will be the companies ESRB and PEGI. When it comes to the age rating of a game, you look to the back of the case, and there you'll find the fat stamps of those either one of those two (depending on where you live) displaying how freakin' old you should be to be allowed to play this game. Maybe they are trying to protect our young generation and shield them from adult content. Or maybe they're just trying to make you throw the game at the wall of the store as hard as you can when you realize you're SIXTEEN and ya just have to be SEVENTEEN to buy it. Who knows?
  Let's start with ESRB, since they deserve that much. I owe it to them. I knew them before I knew PEGI.   
  One beautiful morning nine-year-old me skips into Game Stop praying that Lego Batman will be 'age appropriate'. Heart thumping and hands sweating, I slowly pick up the game, smile wide at Batman and Robin on the cover, and flip it over.
  Guess what?
  It's rated Everyone...TEN AND UP!!!!
  What the butt does that even mean?!?! Does that signify that everyone can play the game...but you must be ten years or older? Why?
  Now, the specification in the rating might be for an important reason. What have we here on a Lego game? Cartoon Violence (Cartoon Violence?). Okay, cool. You have to be 10 to see Batman punch somebody. Understandable.

  How do you get that wrong? Is there a social or biological problem with a nine-year-old punching bad guys...made of plastic? This is a child's game. It was meant for children to play. Any person sick enough to deprive a nine-year-old (with strict parents) the RIGHT to enjoy Lego Batman: The Video Game just because he's not TEN should not be allowed to call himself/herself human. That is very evil. What, are you trying to make preteens world-wide cry?

Guess who the nine-year-old is?

  

  Thanks, ESRB. You did a fantastic job. I almost don't want to mention the obvious fact that everyone knows about game rating companies:

  Did any of you play the game? Let me repeat that for you: Did any of you, the people who are meant to give people information about the game, play the game?

  Huh?!

  And are there any levels of 'violence'? When ESRB puts 'violence' in the category of a game's features, they do specify it, right? Okay, my guess is 'Cartoon Violence' means nothing major: There's no blood, there's no bone cracking or jaw breaking. Heck, a normal punch will make funny sounds instead of the usual thump. A nine-year-old can be exposed to this, I'm sure. Even an eight or a seven year old. Nobody shuts off a TV set when they find their seven year old son/daughter watching Tom & Jerry beat the crap out of each other. My point here is, if you're gonna give a game a specific age rating in which everyone above that age rating can play, give a reason that makes sense. Here's an example: A seven-year-old might have trouble understanding certain concepts in the game, like puzzle solving or the game story in general. How about putting 'Mediocre Puzzle Solving' on the back of the game instead? There, your child might not have fun playing it because he/she won't be able to solve the not-hard-for-a-ten-year-old puzzles. Fair enough?

  There are not only downsides to these mistakes in age ratings. Let's head over to PEGI and see how they rate games. PEGI rates games much like ESRB: a system of symbols or words that illustrate what the game will contain and the overall age appropriateness in terms of that content. Now, Batman: Arkham City was (still is) a huge hit, and ESRB got it right: Some drug and alcohol reference, mild language, suggestive themes, and our good ol' pal violence. That about sums it up (they forgot o add 'awesome'. I loved this game!) Okay, cool, so how about the other 'respected' age-rating company? What did PEGI 'peg' on the back of Batman: Arkham City? 

  Violence.

  

  What?! Violence ONLY?! PEGI has a LOT of symbols that show content. They got stuff like 'fear', 'drugs', 'gambling', 'language'. So imagine my surprise when I compare the game's content, after finishing it of course, to what our friends PEGI said about the content. Know what I found? A lot of stuff freakin' PEGI didn't mention besides violence! How can you say there's no language in the game? Even if you didn't play (Which we know you didn't), the game takes place in a freakin' PRISON! Think for a minute.

  Anyway, overall, here's what I think would be an amazing idea. You know those little events where you choose someone to test a game? Let THAT guy rate it. 'Cause guess what, PEGI and ESRB? He played it.

  Until next we meet.